TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....9.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 27,22,500. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and then taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment was completed by an order under section 143(3) of the Act on 20.10.2010 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,03,25,814 by denying the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt.20.10.2010, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore, who dismissed the appeal by order dt.1.12.2011. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the exemption. 54F in respect of the investment made. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the case law relied on by her is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. 6. Without prejudice, the addition as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary, excessive and ought to be deleted in toto. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have deleted the interest of Rs. 6,37,804 charged under section 234B and Rs. 8,434 under section 234C of the Act. 8. For ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reiterated the claim made in the grounds of appeal and filed submission dt.4.5.2012. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M.A. Patel Vs. ITO in ITA No.183/Bang/2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07 stating that the facts of that case and the decision therein squarely applied to the present case of the assessee. In view of this, it was submitted that the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) was liable to be reversed and the assessee's appeal allowed on the issue of exemption under section 54F of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative on her part supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (Appeals) and sought upholding of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) was filed by the learned counsel for the assessee vide submissions on 21.5.2012 which specifies that the tax collected was building tax. These details as extracted from the documents filed show that the property consisted of a house and not a vacant land at the time the property was purchased by the assessee and there is no doubt that Raj Mahal Vilas II Stage was a designated residential area. In the light of the above evidence on record, the question that needs to be decided is as to whether the assessee had purchased a residential house so as to enable him to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. 5.5 On this issue, the Assessing Officer had made certain observations in the order of assessment in reaching the finding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 6900 on 3.7.2007 was for tax paid for building and not for a vacant site. c) The learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of D.P. Mehta Vs. CIT (251 ITR 529) was squarely applicable in the assessee's case and accordingly disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the cited case, the assessee admitted that the building was not inhabitable or worth occupying and therefore it was held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 54F. However, in the present case, the assessee has made no such admission and therefore with due respect the cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence filed by the assessee in the present case and this in our considered opinion sufficiently justifies the existence of a house of 200 sq. ft. RCC with cement floor and civic amenities on the said property when it was purchased by the assessee on 16.10.2007. The claim of assessee is that it was habitable at the time of purchase. At this point in time, 5 years after the purchase in 2007, it is not possible to verify the condition of the building or whether it was habitable at the time of purchase. We also find that even the Inspector's Inspection Report dt.19.11.2010 was three years after the purchase of the property by the assessee and would therefore not contain an authentic verification of the condition of the said land and building....